Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37841 (AP)

CH RAVINDRA BABU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. v. THE STATE OF A.P.,AGRE.,GUNTUR DIST.,& ANR.

WP/17389/2017 · 2025-07-20

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010665682017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17389/2017 Between: Ch Ravindra Babu, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Agre Guntur Dist Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A V KONDAIAH 2. MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO 3. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue appropriate Writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing 2 petitioner retirement notice dated 14.11.2016 and trying to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years is contrary to the provisions of Act No 4 dated 27.06.2014 and contrary to the Judgment of the Honble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017 illegal arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner upto 60 years of age to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service upto the age of 60 years. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, that pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court dated 25.05.2017, the petitioner’s service was extended until the age of 60, and thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on attaining age of 60 years. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 4. Recording the submissions made by both the counsels, the writ petition is closed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 21.07.2025. Asr 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.17389 of 2017 21.07.2025 Asr